D&D 4E What is a "class" in 4E?

[TK Lafours]

This came up in another thread but I wanted to ask what others thought about it.

In 4E is a 'class' really just an arbitrary label that represents a combination of skills and powers that your character has learned? And is that a good or a bad thing?

In previous incarnations of dnd, your class defined quite a bit more about your character, their background and even their personality. For example, a paladin had to act like her deity would expect or she'd lose her powers, a druid always respected and preserved nature etc. Now, it seems like if you want to play someone with a 'paladin's' background or personality it could be any class you want and still act like a paladin and even call himself a paladin. At the same time, a person with a paladin class could act however they want despite the fact that they receive divine help from a deity that might despise their actions.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. I never liked feeling like my selection of 'class' limited me to certain personality types, alignments or actions. I'm a much bigger fan of creating my own character personality and then selecting a class that compliments it. However, I've noticed that some people seem upset by the fact that a paladin no longer has to 'act' like a paladin and I'm not sure I understand why. Anyone care to explain? I don't want to argue, I'm genuinely interested in that other point of view.

 

[Sanzuo]

In 4E is a 'class' really just an arbitrary label that represents a combination of skills and powers that your character has learned? And is that a good or a bad thing?

That's exactly what it is, and it's a good thing.

 

[Mort_Q]

Some classes were more defined than others in 3e.

A fighter, or a rogue, for example, were pretty generic.

The Paladin and the Ranger, were more specific, but I was always in the Paladin and Ranger should be Prestige Classes camp anyway.

I think they should have lost the classes (or at least specific class names) and stuck powers into groupings based on roles and and power sources.

 

[-Avalon-]

Some classes were more defined than others in 3e.

A fighter, or a rogue, for example, were pretty generic.

The Paladin and the Ranger, were more specific, but I was always in the Paladin and Ranger should be Prestige Classes camp anyway.

I think they should have lost the classes (or at least specific class names) and stuck powers into groupings based on roles and and power sources.

Oh Noes!!! Are you talking about resurrecting Skills n Powers from 2nd Edition? Or having Various Themed books containing skills and powers grouped into those particular themes? (ala Gurps/Rifts)

Dunno, I kinda like the way it is now

 

[Zaruthustran]

That's exactly what it is, and it's a good thing.

Agreed. A class name lets the player and the rest of the table quickly understand what it is you do, and generally, how you go about doing it.

It's a good thing.

Classless systems, IMHO, wind up with kind of muddled characters, where no one really knows what they (or anyone else) can do. And everyone usually concludes their long character description with "...yeah, basically I'm a fighter."

 

[Starbuck_II]

This came up in another thread but I wanted to ask what others thought about it.

In 4E is a 'class' really just an arbitrary label that represents a combination of skills and powers that your character has learned? And is that a good or a bad thing?

In previous incarnations of dnd, your class defined quite a bit more about your character, their background and even their personality. For example, a paladin had to act like her deity would expect or she'd lose her powers, a druid always respected and preserved nature etc. Now, it seems like if you want to play someone with a 'paladin's' background or personality it could be any class you want and still act like a paladin and even call himself a paladin. At the same time, a person with a paladin class could act however they want despite the fact that they receive divine help from a deity that might despise their actions.

Not really, Paladins didn't care about what the Diety wanted if they wanted their powers: they act according to the Hb Code or lose them. Only FR made Paladins diety based (4th edition made any settings Paladin like that) though FR also made them only LG.

A Druid had to respect nature, but nothing about preserving it (it was implied though).

Personally, I think this is a good thing. I never liked feeling like my selection of 'class' limited me to certain personality types, alignments or actions. I'm a much bigger fan of creating my own character personality and then selecting a class that compliments it. However, I've noticed that some people seem upset by the fact that a paladin no longer has to 'act' like a paladin and I'm not sure I understand why. Anyone care to explain? I don't want to argue, I'm genuinely interested in that other point of view.

Agreed, I always looked in 3.5 classes as tool sets.
Never let the base flavor restrict my ideas.

My Monk might be a genetic experiment not Ki warrior. Flurry of blows is just me temporarily growing extra arms and pummeling my foes.
Wis and Level bonus to AC is just my body thickening a membrane that stops blows from affecting me.
Etc. No Mechanic difference, but fluff difference.

 

[Mort_Q]

Oh Noes!!! Are you talking about resurrecting Skills n Powers from 2nd Edition? Or having Various Themed books containing skills and powers grouped into those particular themes? (ala Gurps/Rifts)

Dunno, I kinda like the way it is now

Not suggesting I want that for 4e. Just saying what I wanted in 3e.

 

[yu gnomi]

I see a 4ed classes as templates for badassness plus fluff (which elaborates on the sort of badass you are supposed to be).

How seriously the fluff is taken is up to the DM, since the DM is final arbiter on everything, but I see little reason to take it seriously. I think play goes smoother if players can be mavericks without suffering penalties.